Bishan Narain, J. - (1.) This is an application under Arts. 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2.) The circumstances in which this petition has been made may be stated briefly. The Registrar, Joint Stock Companies on receipt of a complaint in November 1951 relating to affairs of Dal-mia Jain Airways Ltd., started proceedings under Section 137(6) Indian Companies Act and as he was dissatisfied with the explanation given by the Company, he reported the matter to the State Government under Section 137(5). The Government appointed Messrs. S. P. Chopra and Company to investigate into the affairs of the Company under Section 138(4) in June 1952. In the meeting held on 13-6-1952 the Company resolved by a special resolution that it be wound up voluntarily and appointed Shrl C. P. Lal, Advocate to act as a voluntary liquidator, who immediately wrote to the Registrar requiring him to drop the proceedings started by him under Section 137 on the ground that proceedings after voluntary liquidation could be taken only Section 237 of the Act and Section 137 becomes wholly inapplicable "to such a Company, but this request of the voluntary liquidator was rejected by the Registrar. Thereupon an application was made to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order quashing the appointment of Messrs. S. P. Chopra and Company as investigators on the ground that after the Company had gone into voluntary liquidation Section 137 and the following sections were not applicable to it. This petition, however, was dismissed 'in limine' by a Division Bench of this Court in September 1952. Soon after the voluntary liquidator made an application under Sections 153 and 153-A, Companies Act for sanction of a scheme and when it had been sanctioned the liquidator transferred all the assets and liabilities of the Company as well as its books to a new concern, Asian Udyog Limited, which in the course of arguments was described as one of the Dalmia concerns. The investigators made their report on 27-11-1952 according to which certain officers of the Company were found to be guilty of criminal offences in relation to the Company. The Central Government thereupon referred the matter to Shri Pettigore. Advocate (Public Prosecutor) who caused the Registrar to lodge a first Information report and that was done on 18-11-1953. In pursuance of this report the police authorities made an application to the District Magistrate, Delhi, under Section 96, Criminal P. C. for search of documents and this application was duly granted, whereupon the police searched various-places and seized a considerable number of documents. The Company and its officers then made an application to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution which was, however, dismissed by their Lordships: vide 'M. P. Sharma v. Sat-ish Chandra', AIR 1954 SC 300 (A). It was after dismissal of their petition by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that they applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution mainly for writ of 'mandamus' with a view to stop investigation into the affairs of the Company by the police in pursuance of the first information report filed by the Registrar. The petition is a lengthy one but the substance of the petition is that the police should no be allowed to carry on the investigation by seiz-ure and inspection of documents relating to the Company. In support of the petition under Article 226 the petitioners' counsel had argued (1) that provisions relating to the investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable to offences relating to companies and (2) that the Indian Penal Code does not relate to offences relating to companies and that all the offencs under the Companies Act are non-cognizable and, therefore, the first information report could not be lodged with the police. It was also argued that investigation under the Companies Act can be made while the Company is a going concern under Section 137, Companies Act but once the company goes into liquidation then section 137 automatically ceases to be applicable and proceedings can be taken only under Section 237, Indian Companies Act. It was then argued that in any case the Registrar and other authorities concerned had not taken proper proceedings under Sections 137 to 141-A, Indian Companies Act and the proceedings taken were irregular in law. This Court, however, dismissed the petition and rejected all the contentions of the petitioners. This Court also held that in any case as far as the irregularities under Section 137, Indian Companies Act are concerned, even if they are proved, this Court would not in the exercise of its discretion interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have now applied under Arts. 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution of India with a view to appeal to the Supreme Court.
(3.) It appears to me that Article 132 of the Constitution of India has no application to these proceedings. In the course of arguments a reference was made to Article 14 of the Constitution and it was pressed into service with a view to persuade this Court to hold that an investigation by the police under the Criminal Procedure Code is excluded when an investigation has been made or is to be made under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and it was argued that otherwise a discrimination in the procedure will be introduced which will be in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution. This argument was not accepted by this Court. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. I, therefore, hold that Article 132 is not applicable to this case and, therefore, the petitioners cannot appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. I;